The revision petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent as well as father of the respondents 2 and 3. This revision petition was filed challenging the impugned order passed in M.C. No.291/07 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. The above M.C was filed under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner. According to the 1st respondent, she is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are the children born in that wedlock. Hence, he is liable to pay maintenance allowance under Sec.
125 of the Cr.P.C. But, from 1998 onwards the revision petitioner has been neglecting to pay maintenance allowance to them. The 1st respondent has no job or income and the respondents 2 and 3 are minor students studying in different classes. They have no other source of income and now they are depending upon the parents of the 1st respondent. Per contra, the revision petitioner is having a total monthly income at the tune of Rs.31,000/- per month from his real estate business, agricultural activities and as the owner of a power tiller. They claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.2,500/- each to the respondents 2 and 3.
2. The revision petitioner entered appearance and filed an objection against the interim application to pay interim maintenance. He has not filed any objection to the M.C. Thereafter, on 14-07-2009, the court below passed an order stating that the revision petitioner is not eligible to contest the case as he failed to pay interim maintenance allowance to the respondents. But, he did not challenge that order so far. So also he did not file any objection to the M.C. Thus, practically, there was no contest from the part of the revision petitioner. In the above circumstances, the court below considered the evidence adduced by respondents and the contentions raised in the objection to the interlocutory application for interim maintenance. Thereafter, the Family Court passed the impugned order directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 from the date of the petition. The legality and correctness of this order is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments contending that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable, in view of the fact that the revision petitioner has not been given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. For the non-compliance of the interim order and also in the absence of counter statement objecting the claim in the M.C., the court below went wrong by passing the impugned order, on the basis of the evidence of the 1st respondent as well as the contentions raised in the objection filed to the application for interim maintenance.
4. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question that arises for consideration is whether the court below can be justified in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rates referred above on the basis of the evidence available on record.
5. Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that it is the specific case of the respondents that the revision petitioner has been neglecting to pay maintenance allowance from 14-04-1999 onwards. In the objection filed by the revision petitioner to the application for interim maintenance allowance, there is no case that he has been paying maintenance allowance to the respondents. In the absence of any evidence to show otherwise, the court below was constrained to pass interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to the respondents. The said order was passed on 11-12-2008. But, up to 14-07-2009 no amount had been paid to the respondents in compliance of the interim order dated 11-12-2008. So also, no objection had been filed to the claims raised in the M.C. up to the date of passing of the impugned order. The revision petitioner has no case that he filed an objection to the M.C. along with a petition to accept the same, or he has challenged the said order depriving him to contest the M.C on merits. Going by the sequence of events, I am convinced that the revision petitioner was grossly negligent in prosecuting the matter properly and so also he was not ready to obey the order of the court below to pay interim maintenance allowance. It is to be borne in mind that Sec.125 Cr.P.C is intended for the welfare of the wife and children who are abandoned or neglected by the husband. The object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The enquiry contemplated under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is summary in nature only. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is technical in nature. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the instant case, I am of the opinion that the respondents, who claim maintenance allowance, deserve substantial justice from the court. In this view, the court below can be justified in passing the impugned order in the absence of a counter statement from the part of the revision petitioner.
6. Coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the impugned order is an ex parte order. But, I am not inclined to accept the said argument in view of the detailed considerations in the impugned order. Though the 1st respondent contended that the revision petitioner has a monthly income of Rs.31,000/-, the court below has taken Rs.10,000/- only as the basis for granting maintenance allowance. According to the learned Family Court Judge, without much difficulty the revision petitioner would be able to spare an amount of Rs.4,000/- for the maintenance of his wife and the two children, who are studying at school level. The petitioner has no case that he is unhealthy or disabled or incapacitated to do work so as to eke out his livelihood. An able bodied man is presumed to be having sufficient capacity to earn livelihood for his family. In this analysis, I find that the impugned order is passed on merits, though the revision petitioner has not filed a counter statement. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge and hence this revision petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
//true copy// P.S. To Judge St/-